JayB

I give it a week, tops.

Will do. There'll be three of us, and two of us will have what I have been told are "especially gay looking" white packs . so, look for the guys skipping along the trail and whistling...

I am going to guess it was some dimethyltryptamine cooked up by that dude Shulgin in his lab outside of Berkely and the entire experience was just an intense hallucination....

I'll be on the same route this weekend with two partners. Hopefully your group will be faster and will kick steps for us....

Ending the subsidies would go a long way towards addressing most of these problems, and the additional revenue generated by actually charging market rates for the timber could be tapped to ameloriate the rest....

This gleefully ignores the fact that unfair trade practices are used by larger countries against smaller countries that don't have the resources to subsidize industries or commodities. If the markets were truely free you might have a good argument. But in practice the less developed countries just become little economic colonies of the bigger boys. How quaint. Actually, attempting to compete against nations that have a competitive advantage and subsidize their production would be even more disastrous for the underdeveloped country, as they are not only squandering their capital by trying to compete in a sector in which they lack a natural advantage, they are going a step further and essentially trying to outspend a country with several orders of magnitude more wealth to waste on such things. Better an economic colony with a decent standard of living than an imploding carcas of a nation state with the population sacrificed on the altar of anti-market ideologies that were tossed on the intellectual slag heap decades ago if you ask me.

The most effective way for a developing country to assure that their industries are overwhelmed by foreign competition is to squander what little capital they have in efforts to develop industries in sectors where they will always be at a competitive advantage instead of using their resources to invest in sectors where they can compete. At one point Saudi Arabia was attempting to become self-sufficient in food production, so they began to invest heavily in wheat cultivation. There is simply no way that a Saudi Arabian wheat farmer will ever be able to compete with wheat farmers in more temperate climates, ever. Instead of using the proceeds from the industry in which they enjoy a huge natural advantage, namely oil production to buy the wheat, they set out to make it themselves at a dramatically higher cost. Instead of procuring one ton of wheat for X barrels of oil on the open market, they produced one ton of wheat for 10X barrels of oil. Not only did they get ten times less wheat for the same price, they foolishly sqandered the proceeds from the sale of the other 9X barrels of oil that could have been invested more productively on virtually anything else. This is one of many reasons why Saudi Arabia will go tits up if the price of oil ever drops below $15 a barrell for any length of time. Whatever the tarrif, the result is the same - squandered capitol, less development, and more misery. For more dramatic examples, just take a look at any Soviet Block nation of your choice, China in the Good Ole Days of the Cultural Revolution, or the tremendous prosperity currently being enjoyed by the denizens of North Korea under the tutelage of their Dear Leader, Kim Jong Il.

Ralph: It is certainly true that the income of an individual employed by a business that competes directly with Walmart might indeed see his or her disposable income reduced when Walmart goes to town. However, this will not be true of anyone who does not lose their job as the result of direct competition with Walmart, and in the case in virtually every real town, this group will constitute the vast majority of the population. So my original argument still holds. Bottom line - it sucks to be a record-store clerk living in your parents basement no matter who you work for. I just don't think that it is fair to impose artificially high costs on the vast majority of the working people for the sake of the few that benefit from such an arrangement. j_b: Who's quality of life? Restricting consumer's options and forcing them to pay more for the goods and services that they need greatly enhances the quality of life for those that benefit from a lack of competition, but diminishes the quality of life for the vast majority of the population when they are forced to pay artificially high costs for the things that they need. When working families can save money by buying the same goods at a lower cost, the amount of money that they have available to spend on health care, clothes for their children, books, vacations, recreational equipment, or to save for hard times increases in direct proportion to their savings on these items, as does their quality of life as they define it. For most people, the fact of the matter is that the amount of money that they have beyond bare subsistence requirements plays a large role in determining their quality of life. You may feel differently, and you of course are free to live your life differently than they do (voluntary ascetic in a vegan commune?), but I fail to see how any self-annointed Friend of The People can argue on behalf of curtailing their liberty to do so. End of response to j_b's query. In all seriousness - and don't take this the wrong way - but where did everyone study (or not study) economics? This is pretty basic stuff, and the argument concerning free-trade, whether it be in small towns or nation states, was settled conclusively centuries ago. Arguing that restricting consumer choice and maintaining artificially high prices in small towns will lead to prosperity in those said towns is perfectly analagous to arguing that imposing draconian tariffs on imports will make a nation more prosperous. This is the economic equivalent of Creationism, a creed long since abandoned by anyone competent to asses the validity of the theory. If you believe such things, do yourself a favor and do some reading - seriously. Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" would be a good place to start, followed shortly thereafter by "The Wealth of Nations" and topped off with Bastiat's "Economic Sophisms" for extra credit. Done. I win.

grocery stores, auto supply, home furnishing, gardening, drug stores, clothing stores etc... not so small a number eh? Even if you assume that every single competitor in every one of these sectors is put out of business, which never actually happens in the real world - e.g. if you need a gear puller or timing belt to work on your car you still need an actual auto parts store, if you want brand name clothing you still need a department store, etc, etc, etc - any resulting (net) job losses would have a negligible impact on the local economy, for the simple fact that in the real world, the retail consumer goods business is a minor fraction of what actually drives the local economy.

Word. I saw about 100 in 100 in the lot at the store in Madras or Redmond on my way home. Looks like a match made in heaven to me, with the ideal client base living on site....

Can someone show me a rural town in which the primary driver of economic activity is selling groceries, clothing, and personal care products? The fact of the matter is that in most rural towns, things like farming, ranching, manufacturing, construction, mining, and logging are the things that the local economy depends upon. There are a number of other businesses/professionals that serve the needs of the folks who make their living in one of these lines of work, such as doctors, lawyers, teachers, policemen, mechanics, hairdressers, etc. The fact of the matter is that the number of people who make their living selling the same things that chains like Walmart do is relatively small. Ergo the number of people that are actually displaced when Walmart comes to town is relatively small. When all of the people who do not own or work in a store that competes with Walmart - that is, the vast majority of the people in any given town and its hinterland - can buy the same quantity of goods for a lower price, the net disposable income in the town increases by the very amount that they save. The only way this could not be true is if the difference between the income lost by persons laid off at Walmart's competitors was greater than the combined savings of consumers plus the income earned by all of the employees at the new Walmart, which is unlikely unless we are speaking of fictional towns in which selling consumer staples at heavily inflated prices that supports an excessive number of employees is the primary driver of economic activity. The arrival of Walmart or any other store in which the residents can buy a given item for a lower price will always produce this result. When the amount of money the average person has to spend in excess of their daily needs increases as a result of such savings, the result is more economic activity, not less. $100 that they saved on the goods that they bought at Walmart is now available to spend on eating out, repairing their car, home improvements, landscaping - what have you. The quantity of money that would have formerly been dedicated exclusively to buying groceries can now be spent on groceries and the services of the local mechanic, carpenter, roofer or contribute the to local economy in dozens of other ways. The claim that chain-stores reduce overall economic activity in small towns just doesn't hold up when one takes basic economics into account and limits ones analysis to towns that actually exist. The claim that chain stores like Walmart reduce employment in stores owned by their competitors is true. If, as will always be the case in any real small town, the majority of the people do not make their living selling consumer staples, and the members of this majority of decide that saving money is beneficial to them, and buying goods for a lower price provides them the means to do so - you cannot oppose Walmart on "The People's" - e.g. the majority's - behalf. You can oppose Walmart because you have ideological objections to the existence of large companies, but that's it. To do otherwise is to defend the narrow interests of the small minority (the people who sell a limited range of consumer goods and those who work for them) against the interests of the majority - those who make their living in other ways, upon whom the economic well-being of the town actually depends. Defending the economic interests of the few against the many hardly seems like a "progessive" stance to me. Forcing the residents of small towns to make economic sacrifices for the sake of a small group of people who are probably better off than they are is not only unfair, it is asking them to abide by a standard that the grocers, pharmacists, etc do not abide by themselves. Does the grocer who wants to force everyone to pay higher prices for the same goods apply the same standard to his own business? When he is looking for a wholesaler does intentionally pay more than he has to for the goods he is going to sell? When he is looking for a loan does he pay more interest than he has to help the bank out? Hardly. And as far as the jobs at Walmart are concerned, here too the criticism is flawed. The bottom line is that anyone who works at Walmart has made a choice to do so. That means they looked at the pay, looked at the other options available to them, and decided this was the best deal that they could get at the time. If the store just opened, that means that they were either unemployed or working someplace that offered less pay, poorer working conditions, less opportunity for advancement, or a combination of all three. Moreover, anyone who believes that less than ideal working conditions only exist at Walmart must have a very limited aquaintance with the realities of the job market. The fact of the matter is that small businesses can exploit and mistreat their employees just as well as any large corporation can, especially when they know that their employees have few other options, which is often the case in small towns. So oppose Walmart on ideoligical grounds if you wish, just don't claim that you are doing so on behalf of "The People," especially the people in small towns.

Dru: No more salacious PM's. Seriously.

Just after a mini-epic. Double bonus points for the copious amounts of dried snot in the nostril and sub-nasal region. Ladies - contain yourselves!!!!!!

Possible if he's from CO or UT...

They have the Cassin Raid Light Strap on version at www.overstock.com ( here ) for $53.95. They are light, and they come with anti-balling plates. There's nothing special about them, but I can't see paying twice as much for what will be a niche item for me.

If you are going light (my definition 30-35lbs or less) a carry-over might be the way to go. Otherwise, an early start from high camp would be a better plan IMO. If I were to do the route again I'd shoot for being out of harm's way, e.g. past the bowling alley beneath the ice cliff by 10:00AM or so. If you do descend the route, the alternate exit from the chute described above is a much better option. Also - you may want to take a look at RMI's schedule for the DC route. I'd personally rather deal with the seracs than weave through that many people on the way down...

Zeke's. Word.

Zeke's. If you stand on the tables and squint you can see the water from the deck....

Zeke's forever!!!!!!!!!!!! Besides the fact that it is about 100 feet away from my house, it also has a ton of outdoor seating, which they might even reserve for us if someone were to call. We also had a pretty good time during our last visit to Zeke's.

V1-v2...a bit reachy. All rocks for feet except the big block.

Agreed about the bowling alley. I had the same question. Here's Ivan's reply from another thread... "on the way down from the chute, homeward bound, descend to the level of the bottom tongue of the icefall, then cut strait across the debris path to the far wall (to the east, towards muir) the far wall is safe from ice/rock fall from the ice cliff, but itself could have rock fall from above (there's a real nice cave area though, big enough for two people, and a source of shade in the hot afternoon with a wild view of nature gone mad just a few feet away) this area you cut strait across is at the same level where you'd turn the corner if you were climbing the route, had run down the debris path, and were then turning back up hill once you've crossed to the eastern wall and are largely out of danger, stick tight to the wall and go downhill about 50-100 feet...i assume this area might form a moat in later season, as the rappel line that's fixed was locked into the snow and was protecting what was a pretty easy climb...the rock portion is a little awkward in crampons, but still simple...it takes you out onto a snowfield that connects over to camp hazard we didn't see anything come crashing down from the cliff, but there's no shortage of evidence to the contrary in the blast zone...this way is definitely the fastest to cross danger area (i still think our variation on the way up was more enjoyable though) "

Beta as in recent conditions? I in the vicinity two weeks ago. It looked like a decent sized slide ran the length of the lower chute a couple of days before our arrival. Most from 8,000-11,000' consisted of a thin crust atop bottomless isothermal slush in the colder hours, and just straight-up slush for the rest of the day. Neve' with extensive snowcover above that elevation, with the only open crevasse on the upper route being just beneath the crater rim. Even allowing for three weeks of warm temps, my guess was that the route is still in shape but wouldn't give it more than a couple of weeks...

Three main areas that I know of: The Sandia's - just outside of Albuquerque. A mini mountain range with tons of routes, most of which fall into the long, old-school trad variety, with longish approaches (or so I hear). Enchanted Rock - Moderate to hard sport. Enchanted Rock itself is a freestanding formation with lots of bolted routes. The Los Alamos Areas: White Rock crags- There are a few crags right on the outskirts of Los Alamos. Single pitch trad-cragging, no fixed anchors that I can recall, fairly stiff ratings. Most of the home near los Alamos were built on a mesa top, and some of the routes top out right behind people's back yards. I can't recall the name of the area - but there's an area a few miles outside of town in the National Forest/Jemez Mountains that looked like it had the best climbing of all. Welded tuff, mostly sport, in the midst of a tall pine forest. I think that name was Cochiti Mesa. There's also a place called Las Conchas nearby with about 40 routes that offer more of the same. There's also a place called El Rito I heard about - sounded like it was bolted conglomerate stuff. We were there in February and the access roads were closed, but it looked pretty cool. There are also several amazing hot springs in the area near here. All of the areas might have been affected by the fires out there a couple of years ago. Report back if you go....

I'll bring buns again...

Hey - now I get it. Sweet system. Fast, simple, bomber...